6/7/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
To be sure, this Court has held that a worker brings with him possible infirmities in the
course of his employment, and while the employer does not insure the health of the
employees, he takes the employee as found and assumes the risk of liability.[55]
However, claimants in compensation proceedings must show credible information that
there is probably a relation between the illness and the work.[56] They cannot rely on
the fact that the employer's designated physician had declared the employee fit
pursuant to the pre-employment medical examination (PEME), since the PEME cannot
be a conclusive proof that the seafarer was free from any ailment and specifically for
cancer - prior to his deployment.[57]
The PEME is not exploratory in nature. It is not intended to be a totally indepth and thorough examination of an applicant's medical condition. It
merely determines whether one is "fit to work" at sea or "fit for sea service";
it does not state the real state of health of an applicant. Thus, we held in
NYK-FIL Ship Management, Inc. v. NLRC as follows:
While a PEME may reveal enough for the petitioner (vessel) to decide
whether a seafarer is fit for overseas employment, it may not be relied upon
to inform petitioners of a seafarer's true state of health. The PEME could not
have divulged respondent's illness considering that the examinations were
not exploratory.[58]
Cancer is an especially difficult illness to predict. Despite increased knowledge on risk
factors, its causality is not determinable with any degree of certainty:
In Raro v. Employees' Compensation Commission, we stated that medical
science cannot, as yet, positively identify the causes of various types of
cancer. It is a disease that strikes people in general. The nature of a
person's employment appears to have no relevance. Cancer can strike a
lowly paid laborer, or a highly paid executive, or one who works on land, in
water, or in the bowels of the earth. It makes no difference whether the
victim is employed or unemployed, a white collar employee or a blue collar
worker, a housekeeper, an urban dweller or the resident of a rural area.
By way of exception, certain cancers have reasonably been traced to or
considered as strongly induced by specific causes. For example, heavy
doses of radiation (as in Chernobyl, USSR), cigarette smoke over a
long period for lung cancer, certain chemicals for specific cancers,
and asbestos dust, among others, are generally accepted as
increasing the risks of contracting specific cancers. In the absence of
such clear and established empirical evidence, the law requires proof of
causation or aggravation.[59] (Emphasis supplied)
As the aforementioned case states, there is strong evidence linking specific
circumstances with specific cancers. In this case, however, there seems to be a no
clarity. To recall, the cancer Doroteo succumbed to was throat or laryngeal cancer and
not lung cancer, which is the cancer more commonly associated with heavy cigarette
use. In the same vein, there was no definitive proof presented that the engine room of
the M/V Tungenes had unreasonable amounts of carcinogenic chemicals, nor the
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62954
5/13